| 6:47 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
| 7:22 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Pre-florida results have gone the way of the dodo.
| 7:37 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Does anyone think there might be any truth to this?
Any chance that Google might be buckling from the pressure of all the recent bad press they've been getting about their poor search results lately... perhaps deciding to retro back to pre-florida days when their results were actually relevant?
I for one think it would be a very wise move for them to revert to an old index until they're able to figure out what is going on and can fix the problems they're having with their algo.
| 7:38 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I still see the fakey pre-florida results, where many city widget term are still filtered as seen from Austin. Though I must admit I see Brandy results correcting partly some city terms.
| 8:47 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
What you are seeing is Brandy.
Brandy is made of Florida + Austin - A secret ingredient.
They are absolutely definitely not pre Florida.
No need to discuss origins further just enjoy the best results Google has produced for ages.
Now where did those two secondary sites of mine disappear ;)
| 11:52 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Some UK SERPs appear close but not identical to pre-Florida, others are pre-Brandy. Seeing quite a large variation depending on industry.
| 11:55 am on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<Any chance that Google might be buckling from the pressure of all the recent bad press they've been getting about their poor search results lately>
Where can I read all this recent bad press?
| 12:24 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
Do a site search on WW for "Florida" or read this:
| 12:29 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The CIRCA paper talks about
Terms: sequences of one or more tokens that stand as meaningful units
In my particular area one explanation for what I am seeing would be that they have added to the ontology the term involved as a meaningful unit in its own right. Although there are a significant volume of searches for the term they are almost exclusively from the UK.
As an example if someone searched for blue grass Then the ontology should probably see this as a single unit and link it to music. Rather than blue = colour grass = plant.
I would be interested to hear how place name service searches are fairing now.
| 12:38 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
<Do a site search on WW for "Florida" or read this:
This may be a bit off topic and I don't want to waste people's time with this but the BBC article arose through a program called "Working Lunch". This is a daily business program which airs on BBC2 (For non UK people this is not the most popular BBC channel.) It is also on at a time of day when very few business oriented people see it, (because they are at work).
My point is that I have not seen many other examples of Google bad press. Recently the good press that they have received has probably more than outweighed the bad.
| 3:46 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
This is what I'm seeing:
Good results peppered with off topic results
Good results peppered with "high semantic content close but not on target" results
Good results going to page 2 and page 2 results going to page 1.
Good results gone entirely.
Relevant on topic authority results gone.
Good results with spam (but on target spam).
My conclussion is that you don't have to wait a month or 2 any more for spam to rank. Now you have to wait a week. 2 at the most.
I hate spam grrrrrr
| 4:37 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
|My conclussion is that you don't have to wait a month or 2 any more for spam to rank. Now you have to wait a week. 2 at the most |
I've actually seen some examples of inadvertant semantic spam. Webmasters who have really thrown everything at it with every conceivable variant of terms related to their product in long lists on the page.
I wonder how long it will be before we see deliberate semantic spam?
| 4:48 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
The SERPS are definitely not pure pre_Florida as one of my "over-optimised" sites has not returned
| 5:04 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
I am certainly seeing new results for my money phrase. I can't see any spam for this phrase. I checked the first 50 results and all are bonafide ecommerce or authority sites. These SERPs in he past had a lot of spam, even pre-Florida, and I am happy to see it gone.
| 6:57 pm on Feb 20, 2004 (gmt 0)|
"examples of inadvertant semantic spam"
Same here, I noticed a couple pages rank for a word pairing that neither page is about. Page-1 is about a keyword pair... page-2 has the third term only in anchor text to page-1. Both rank top ten for the combined three word phrase with the page linked to a couple places higher in the serps then page-2. Of course neither is entirely on target for my purposes.